Here's the logic fail on the part of the Republicans and the Blunt
Amendment's "moral objection" clause: where does it stop? Who is the
ultimate decider? What if the CEO of a corporation is a Scandinavian
Lutheran who does not want to include coverage for circumcision, but the
Board of Directors has a minority percentage of Jews who do? What if
the President of the company is a Christian Scientist and wants to
eliminate coverage for blood transfusions, but the Chief Operating
Officer has a son who is a hemophiliac and wants it covered? Or a head
of a company is a Scientologist and believes that psychiatry and
psychiatric drugs are a racket and refuses to include that despite the
fact that the head of Human Resources and the person who negotiates with
the insurance company has been struggling with clinical depression?
Who gets the final say in what kind of coverage an employer can have a
moral objection to?

And so actually it's the opposite of what Cantor said. A woman (or man) should have the choice of whether or not to use her (or his) coverage for birth control, just as a Jew should have the choice of whether or not to be kosher. Just as a Jew shouldn't be told what kosher means, a woman shouldn't be denied access to birth control just because of someone else's (or some organization's) moral objections, whatever that even means. No one's telling an organization it has to endorse birth control, just as no one's telling any Jew what he or she may eat.

1 Comments:

Blunt in the presentation but brings up a good point. People in positions of authority and power are expected to be a bit smarter in the area of general commonsense. Interesting perspective. More logical than Cantor